Is Healthcare a "right" and should it have limits on how much is consumed and by whom?

[Shad]

yes, I agree with you on that about state lines. what do you mean “the government do not pay its full bill”?

Government pays between 70 to 90 cents of every dollar on the bill. This is not about deductions or co-payment. Those costs are passed on to consumers that are not government.

 

[Shad]

The net effect of smoking on healthcare and welfare costs. A cohort study this should cover it, non smokers cost more in healthcare

Which ignores improved medical advances as it is from 1976..... And from the middle of nowhere....

 

[Milton Platt]

The net effect of smoking on healthcare and welfare costs. A cohort study this should cover it, non smokers cost more in healthcare

Thanks, I skimmed the article and will go back and study in more detail. I will also look for a study on U.S. healthcare model, which is different from Finland,

 

[Lyndon]

Which ignores improved medical advances as it is from 1976..... And from the middle of nowhere....

The study started in 1976, not ended, duh!! Its largely because dead people don't collect Social Security, and health care costs rise dramatically the older you are.

 

[Milton Platt]

Government pays between 70 to 90 cents of every dollar on the bill. This is not about deductions or co-payment. Those costs are passed on to consumers that are not government.

well, it could be argued that consumers actually pay all of the bill......some directly and the rest through taxes collected from consumers at large. The question is how to distribute the portion payed through taxes in an ultimately equitable way.

 

[Lyndon]

another article; Alcohol, Obesity and Smoking Do Not Cost Health Care Systems Money

 

[Lyndon]

another article;; https://medicalxpress.com/news/2009-04-smokers-society-money.html

 

[Lyndon]

The only real cost of smoking is a on average shorter lifespan, no greater cost to the country.

 

[Shad]

The study started in 1976, not ended, duh!! Its largely because dead people don't collect Social Security, and health care costs rise dramatically the older you are.

Which ended in 2004. Does not take into accounts economic costs, improvement for treatment, inflation nor government policy. And is from the middle of nowhere. More so you are still ignoring the point that until they die smokers are costing the system more. Those people made a choice which results in higher costs, increased health risks and are not paying an increased causes due to their own stupidity.

 

[Lyndon]

well, it could be argued that consumers actually pay all of the bill......some directly and the rest through taxes collected from consumers at large. The question is how to distribute the portion payed through taxes in an ultimately equitable way.

What he's talking about, is Medicare negotiates a lower payment for services (they don't pay list price for doctors, meds, or hospital tests etc), just like the insurance companies do, not greater cost to the consumer.

 

[Lyndon]

Which ended in 2004. Does not take into accounts economic costs, improvement for treatment, inflation nor government policy. And is from the middle of nowhere. More so you are still ignoring the point that until they die smokers are costing the system more. Those people made a choice which results in higher costs, increased health risks and are not paying an increased causes due to their own stupidity.

You are ignoring the fact that you were wrong, smoking is not a cost to society, it is a cost of a shorter life, not increased costs to society. This is because after 65 years, the government pays Social Security and healthcare costs for almost everyone, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THEY LIVE.

 

[Shad]

You are ignoring the fact that you were wrong, smoking is not a cost to society, it is a cost of a shorter life, not increased costs to society.

I wasn't wrong. Smokers cost the system more while they are alive. Even you own source said it. The only point you had was smokers died earlier. Which is nothing but attributing a cost in comparison to a non-cost due to being dead. Of course dead people costs less. They are dead.....

More so your other source pointing this gem out.

Such conclusions are controversial since they assign an economic benefit to premature death. U.S. government agencies shy away from the calculations. The goal of the U.S. health care system is "prolonging disability-free life," states the 2004 Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking. "Thus any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reduction should not be emphasized in public health decisions."

Dead people pay less in taxes than those that are alive. Surprising.... isn't it. Hilarious

 

[Lyndon]

I wasn't wrong. Smokers cost the system more while they are alive. Even you own source said it. The only point you had was smokers died earlier. Which is nothing but attributing a cost in comparison to a non-cost due to being dead. Of course dead people costs less. They are dead.....

No you're wrong, smokers cost the system more per year when they're alive, but less in total for their entire life, unless you're interested in killing off non smokers to make them less expensive for the government to support, non smokers end up costing more to support over their lifetime.

 

[Shad]

No you're wrong, smokers cost the system more per year when they're alive, but less in total for their entire life, unless you're interested in killing off non smokers to make them less expensive for the government to support, non smokers end up costing more to support over their lifetime.

Arbitrary point as I am not talking about corpses. I am taking about an action, smoking, which brings health risks which are avoidable by..... not smoking. Ergo smokers causes a number of their own problems thus burden the system with an avoidable cost. Again you have no point.

 

[Lyndon]

Arbitrary point as I am not talking about corpses. I am taking about an action, smoking, which bring health risks which are avoidable by..... not smoking. Ergo smokers causes a number of their own problems thus burden the system with an avoidable cost. Again you have no point.

But if you were listening you would have already realized that smoking does not cost the government anything it actually cost them less, the only cost is a shorter life, a life you enjoy 10 times more than miserable non smokers do their lives.

 

[Lyndon]

The point is the costs of smoking are entirely on the smoker, and perhaps their family and friends, but definitely not on society in general.

 

[Shad]

But if you were listening you would have already realized that smoking does not cost the government anything it actually cost them less

Wrong as it did per your own source. Healthcare does not apply to corpses. The action of smoking results in an increased healthcare costs.

the only cost is a shorter life, a life you enjoy 10 times more than miserable non smokers do their lives.

This is pure nonsense. I am sure people coughing up a lung really enjoy life compared to be that can move at a run....

 

[Shad]

The point is the costs of smoking are entirely on the smoker, and perhaps their family and friends, but definitely not on society in general.

Nope as smoking causes health issues which are paid for by society under a NHS system. You know what avoidable means right?

 

[Lyndon]

You're reading comprehension sucks, bigtime!!

Nope as smoking causes health issues which are paid for by society under a NHS system. You know what avoidable means right?

 

[Shad]

You're reading comprehension sucks, bigtime!!

Nope as per the key words NHS and healthcare. Try again. Maybe read words next time. That way you wont make another blunder like the above which is not only amusing but ironic. Heck you just ignored your own study with that remark as Finland has a NHS. Hilarious. Try again son.